Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Mail Call!
As always, commentary, kudos, brickbats, &c. may be directed to The Skeptical Entrepreneur via email. Thank you!
Papers, Please
The Skeptical Entrepreneur was neither impressed nor amused by the so-called "birther" movement, a futile attempt to undo the will of the people by screaming that President Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii - in the face of abundant evidence that he was. Rather, the "birthers" allege that Obama was born in Kenya, his father's native land - in the absence of any evidence other than "the 'Hawaii birth certificate is fake,' so therefore, Obama was born in Kenya."
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That said (with apologies to the readership), proof may be absent for reasons other than that the evidence has been suppressed. Perhaps the reason no one has been able to produce evidence of Obama's birth in Kenya, is that no such evidence ever existed, because the event never happened.
All of this discussion is moot - Obama is, and will remain until 20 January 2017, president of the United States. The discussion of whether he is, or was, qualified for the presidency, will continue long after he is out of office, and probably long after he is dead. For the short term, elections continue. Even now, political campaigns are planning advertising mailings touting their candidate, and excoriating the opposition.
The "birther" movement may be defunct, but political discourse is forever changed. The question of whether a candidate is a "natural-born" citizen, or is in the United States legally, will come up in every political campaign, from precinct constable to the presidency of the United States.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur has determined to demand a copy of the birth certificate, and proof of legal presence in the United States, from any candidate who sends him campaign material through the mail. I'm willing to help you take a stand, and make a statement, too.
For only $1 per candidate, The Skeptical Entrepreneur will send, to any and every political candidate you choose, a post card demanding that the candidate(s) submit to you a certified copy of his/her/their birth certificate(s), as well as proof of legal residence in the United States, and your state.
The post card will state:
"Dear Candidate:
I have received your campaign materials through the U.S. Mail. As a result of the 'birther' movement that sprang up during Barack Obama's candidacy for President of the United States in 2008, the issue of whether political candidates are eligible for election to office, by being "natural-born citizens" and legally present in the United States, has pervaded political discourse in this country, at all levels of our society.
I regret that I cannot support your candidacy, nor vote for you in the upcoming election, unless you are able to demonstrate your eligibility for public office by providing proof of your U.S. citizenship, as well as proof that your are present in this country legally. Please send a certified copy of your birth certificate, as well as a copy of proof of your legal presence in this country, to me at the address in the upper-left corner of the other side of this card. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]"
To have this message sent to political candidates [koff Chris Christie koff-koff] begging for your vote, send $1 (cash or check*) per candidate to:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur
Attn: Michael W. Beatty
1202-B Spring Loop
College Station, TX 77840-7806
Please be sure to include the candidate(s)'s name(s), position(s) sought, and the address(es) of the campaign committee(s) (which should be on the advertisement(s) that you received).
The Skeptical Entrepreneur regrets that he cannot offer any refunds for incomplete requests. If I cannot determine to whom to send the request for documentation, I will not be able to send anything, but I also will not refund your money. Obviously, if there is no return address on your envelope to me, I can't direct your request to the candidate (what would I want with a file full of birth certificates and driver's licenses?). Neither could I refund your money, even if I was able, much less willing, to make refunds - which I am not.
Special to International Readers: The Skeptical Entrepreneur is pleasantly surprised, and deeply gratified, to see that this blog is attracting an international readership. If you would like to have such a message sent to political candidates in your country, please feel free to avail yourself of this service, but note the following rates for international service:
Canada: C$2 - please consult Canada Post/Postes Canada for the advisability of sending "loonies" through the post.
México: ₱20. Consult Correos de México for the advisability of sending ₱ coins through the mail.
Brazil: R$3. Consult Correios for the advisability of sending R$ coins through the mail.
United Kingdom: £1 - any bank note in general circulation in the UK. Consult Royal Mail for the advisability of sending £1 coins (the notorious "Maggie Thatchers" through the post.
Eurozone: €1 - bill(s) issued by any EU member state. As above, consult your national post for the advisability of sending € coins through the post.
Japan: ¥150. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Korea: ₩1,500. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ₩ coins through the post.
China: ¥15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Hong Kong: HK$15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending HK$ coins through the post.
Australia: A$2. Consult Australia Post for the advisability of sending A$ coins through the post.
Russian Federation: 60 р. Consult Почта России for the advisability of sending ruble coins through the post.
As always, non-U.S. subscribers are welcome to send U.S. dollars in payment for this service. All subscribers, regardless of their location, or the currency that they are using to purchase this service, are welcome to send coins, if they choose to do so.*
The Disclaimers:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur disclaims any responsibility for any repercussions that may befall subscribers, especially those from outside the United States, from any political candidate, or operative, or their agents, cohorts, or any governmental, quasi-governmental, extra-governmental, paramilitary, police, or other entity, public or private, as a result of the subscriber's use of this service.
Confiscation, or other refusal by any of the above entities, to deliver, or allow to be delivered, the message, or card, purchased by the subscriber, shall not constitute failure, or refusal by The Skeptical Entrepreneur to fulfill his obligation(s) under any theory of contract that may be applied to this offer, or to the subscriber(s)'s acceptance of this offer.
No claim for damages of any kind, at law or in equity, realized or unrealized, choate or inchoate, shall be allowed in any court in any country. Subscriber's acceptance of this offer constitutes informed, knowing, full and complete waiver of any claims on the subscriber's own behalf, and on behalf of any and all of his/her heirs, successors, legatees, devisees, or assigns.
As political-campaign season gets under way, politicians are going to be sending bales of paper through the mail, urging you to vote for them, and against the other candidate. Make 'em show you the paper you REALLY want to see!
Just $1 per candidate.
*You can send coins, if you want. TSE does not recommend sending coins through the mail - it's awfully hard on the sorting machines, to say nothing of the envelopes.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That said (with apologies to the readership), proof may be absent for reasons other than that the evidence has been suppressed. Perhaps the reason no one has been able to produce evidence of Obama's birth in Kenya, is that no such evidence ever existed, because the event never happened.
All of this discussion is moot - Obama is, and will remain until 20 January 2017, president of the United States. The discussion of whether he is, or was, qualified for the presidency, will continue long after he is out of office, and probably long after he is dead. For the short term, elections continue. Even now, political campaigns are planning advertising mailings touting their candidate, and excoriating the opposition.
The "birther" movement may be defunct, but political discourse is forever changed. The question of whether a candidate is a "natural-born" citizen, or is in the United States legally, will come up in every political campaign, from precinct constable to the presidency of the United States.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur has determined to demand a copy of the birth certificate, and proof of legal presence in the United States, from any candidate who sends him campaign material through the mail. I'm willing to help you take a stand, and make a statement, too.
For only $1 per candidate, The Skeptical Entrepreneur will send, to any and every political candidate you choose, a post card demanding that the candidate(s) submit to you a certified copy of his/her/their birth certificate(s), as well as proof of legal residence in the United States, and your state.
The post card will state:
"Dear Candidate:
I have received your campaign materials through the U.S. Mail. As a result of the 'birther' movement that sprang up during Barack Obama's candidacy for President of the United States in 2008, the issue of whether political candidates are eligible for election to office, by being "natural-born citizens" and legally present in the United States, has pervaded political discourse in this country, at all levels of our society.
I regret that I cannot support your candidacy, nor vote for you in the upcoming election, unless you are able to demonstrate your eligibility for public office by providing proof of your U.S. citizenship, as well as proof that your are present in this country legally. Please send a certified copy of your birth certificate, as well as a copy of proof of your legal presence in this country, to me at the address in the upper-left corner of the other side of this card. Thank you.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]"
To have this message sent to political candidates [koff Chris Christie koff-koff] begging for your vote, send $1 (cash or check*) per candidate to:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur
Attn: Michael W. Beatty
1202-B Spring Loop
College Station, TX 77840-7806
Please be sure to include the candidate(s)'s name(s), position(s) sought, and the address(es) of the campaign committee(s) (which should be on the advertisement(s) that you received).
The Skeptical Entrepreneur regrets that he cannot offer any refunds for incomplete requests. If I cannot determine to whom to send the request for documentation, I will not be able to send anything, but I also will not refund your money. Obviously, if there is no return address on your envelope to me, I can't direct your request to the candidate (what would I want with a file full of birth certificates and driver's licenses?). Neither could I refund your money, even if I was able, much less willing, to make refunds - which I am not.
Special to International Readers: The Skeptical Entrepreneur is pleasantly surprised, and deeply gratified, to see that this blog is attracting an international readership. If you would like to have such a message sent to political candidates in your country, please feel free to avail yourself of this service, but note the following rates for international service:
Canada: C$2 - please consult Canada Post/Postes Canada for the advisability of sending "loonies" through the post.
México: ₱20. Consult Correos de México for the advisability of sending ₱ coins through the mail.
Brazil: R$3. Consult Correios for the advisability of sending R$ coins through the mail.
United Kingdom: £1 - any bank note in general circulation in the UK. Consult Royal Mail for the advisability of sending £1 coins (the notorious "Maggie Thatchers" through the post.
Eurozone: €1 - bill(s) issued by any EU member state. As above, consult your national post for the advisability of sending € coins through the post.
Japan: ¥150. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Korea: ₩1,500. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ₩ coins through the post.
China: ¥15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending ¥ coins through the post.
Hong Kong: HK$15. The Skeptical Entrepreneur does not recommend sending HK$ coins through the post.
Australia: A$2. Consult Australia Post for the advisability of sending A$ coins through the post.
Russian Federation: 60 р. Consult Почта России for the advisability of sending ruble coins through the post.
As always, non-U.S. subscribers are welcome to send U.S. dollars in payment for this service. All subscribers, regardless of their location, or the currency that they are using to purchase this service, are welcome to send coins, if they choose to do so.*
The Disclaimers:
The Skeptical Entrepreneur disclaims any responsibility for any repercussions that may befall subscribers, especially those from outside the United States, from any political candidate, or operative, or their agents, cohorts, or any governmental, quasi-governmental, extra-governmental, paramilitary, police, or other entity, public or private, as a result of the subscriber's use of this service.
Confiscation, or other refusal by any of the above entities, to deliver, or allow to be delivered, the message, or card, purchased by the subscriber, shall not constitute failure, or refusal by The Skeptical Entrepreneur to fulfill his obligation(s) under any theory of contract that may be applied to this offer, or to the subscriber(s)'s acceptance of this offer.
No claim for damages of any kind, at law or in equity, realized or unrealized, choate or inchoate, shall be allowed in any court in any country. Subscriber's acceptance of this offer constitutes informed, knowing, full and complete waiver of any claims on the subscriber's own behalf, and on behalf of any and all of his/her heirs, successors, legatees, devisees, or assigns.
As political-campaign season gets under way, politicians are going to be sending bales of paper through the mail, urging you to vote for them, and against the other candidate. Make 'em show you the paper you REALLY want to see!
Just $1 per candidate.
*You can send coins, if you want. TSE does not recommend sending coins through the mail - it's awfully hard on the sorting machines, to say nothing of the envelopes.
Friday, March 22, 2013
A Sad State of [Veterans's] Affairs
The Skeptical Entrepreneur's companion blog, Well, Duh! has a new post on Sen. Richard Burr's (R-NC) effort to have the Senate Veterans's Affairs Committee assume some of the management functions of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This is another sad example of how America's fighting men and women, once the battle is won and Johnny has come marching home, become a political football for partisan posturing. Supposedly, the United States sends its fighting men and women overseas for the sole purpose of upholding freedom, liberty and constitutional principles - never for territorial aggrandizement, or for regime change, or anything tawdry like that (except for, you know, that one-off aberration from 2003-2012).
Now comes Richard Burr, who never passes an opportunity to salute the troops, saluting the troops once again. Only this time, he's only extended one finger, a gesture so commonplace among Republicans that it might be termed the "GOP Salute to the Troops." Burr honors the sacrifices of America's fighting men and women who have come home with health issues requiring the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, by betraying that very sacrifice.
By repudiating the constitutional principles for which American fighting men and women went overseas, Burr reveals himself, not as the champion of American warriors, but as their enemy. The full details can be seen at the Well Duh! post, and from the links therein; they need not be rehearsed here.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur wishes to go on record that Sen. Burr needs to return his policy to constitutional principles, or his constituents need to hold him accountable in 2016.
This is another sad example of how America's fighting men and women, once the battle is won and Johnny has come marching home, become a political football for partisan posturing. Supposedly, the United States sends its fighting men and women overseas for the sole purpose of upholding freedom, liberty and constitutional principles - never for territorial aggrandizement, or for regime change, or anything tawdry like that (except for, you know, that one-off aberration from 2003-2012).
Now comes Richard Burr, who never passes an opportunity to salute the troops, saluting the troops once again. Only this time, he's only extended one finger, a gesture so commonplace among Republicans that it might be termed the "GOP Salute to the Troops." Burr honors the sacrifices of America's fighting men and women who have come home with health issues requiring the services of the Department of Veterans Affairs, by betraying that very sacrifice.
By repudiating the constitutional principles for which American fighting men and women went overseas, Burr reveals himself, not as the champion of American warriors, but as their enemy. The full details can be seen at the Well Duh! post, and from the links therein; they need not be rehearsed here.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur wishes to go on record that Sen. Burr needs to return his policy to constitutional principles, or his constituents need to hold him accountable in 2016.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Of POTUS and Professional Road Warriors
From CNN.com comes notice that POTUS was potentially immobilized during his State visit to Israel, when the driver of his limousine refueled the diesel-powered vehicle with gasoline. President Barack Obama had not yet arrived in Israel when the maintenance issue became apparent (the presidential Nova, or whatever the Hebrew version of Nova would be, failed to go), and a backup limousine was transported to Tel Aviv to await Obama's arrival.
Call The Skeptical Entrepreneur charmingly (or otherwise) naive, but he always thought that the security detail responsible for transporting the President of the United States was composed of professionals, equipped with procedural manuals and tough, realistic, real-world training designed to ensure that the prescribed procedure for any conceivable contingency would be followed spontaneously, and executed expeditiously. Now we find that the "professional" security driver was so out of it that s/he couldn't even double-check to ensure that the fuel that he was about to put into the presidential limousine was the correct fuel for the engine, and vice-versa.
TSE is left to wonder whether this incident is not an argument for a privatized solution.
Call The Skeptical Entrepreneur charmingly (or otherwise) naive, but he always thought that the security detail responsible for transporting the President of the United States was composed of professionals, equipped with procedural manuals and tough, realistic, real-world training designed to ensure that the prescribed procedure for any conceivable contingency would be followed spontaneously, and executed expeditiously. Now we find that the "professional" security driver was so out of it that s/he couldn't even double-check to ensure that the fuel that he was about to put into the presidential limousine was the correct fuel for the engine, and vice-versa.
TSE is left to wonder whether this incident is not an argument for a privatized solution.
Monday, March 11, 2013
Of High Growth and Low Wages
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is thunderstruck - yes, thunderstruck! - ladies and gentlemen, to read in Money's online edition that robust job growth in one career field is accompanied, hand-in-hand, by less-robust wage growth in that career field. Strike TSE down with a feather!
It seems that demand for home-healthcare aides is booming. Given that perennial demand for jobs has been exacerbated lately by a shortage of supply, folks are flocking to home-healthcare like carrion birds to . . . well . . . never mind, but suffice to say that demand for jobs has produced an abundant supply of workers, once the supply of jobs perked up to meet the demand. Clear as mud, right?
And, surprise, surprise, surprise, as the supply of workers has spiked in the home-healthcare-aide market, what has happened to the value of that commodity? Well, whatta ya know - the labor market behaves just like any other commodity market! The Skeptical Entrepreneur hardly knows for whom to weep first.
Shall The Skeptical Entrepreneur weep for Money's writer, who appears to have discovered laissez-faire, or at least free-market economics? Probably better to weep for the editor(s), who considered this a reasonable slant for the article, assigned it, edited it, and posted it, all with a straight face and the comfort of knowing they were providing a service for the infotainment-starved masses.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur declines to weep for the capitalists, who having planned their work (or, at least, having arranged economic conditions in such a way that consumers will stampede to any job, no matter how distasteful, for however small a pittance), are now working their plan.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for his fellow Americans, who are so economically-illiterate that they need to be fed this sort of non-information, and will lap it up with scarcely an ironical gulp.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for the academic economists, who, if they are as clueless as academic historians, could stand to hear "the circular flow of goods and services," and "commodity prices and supplies vary inversely with each other" just one more time, for old times's sake.
No, The Skeptical Entrepreneur reserves his tears for the poor dumb bastards who have flocked into home-healthcare aide work, especially those with shiny, new student-loan debt. It reminds TSE of the heady days of the MCSE boom in the mid-1990s, when TSE managed to avoid the stampede to second-class techno-geekery, being content to continue to flip hamburgers
As it turns out, Mark Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
It seems that demand for home-healthcare aides is booming. Given that perennial demand for jobs has been exacerbated lately by a shortage of supply, folks are flocking to home-healthcare like carrion birds to . . . well . . . never mind, but suffice to say that demand for jobs has produced an abundant supply of workers, once the supply of jobs perked up to meet the demand. Clear as mud, right?
And, surprise, surprise, surprise, as the supply of workers has spiked in the home-healthcare-aide market, what has happened to the value of that commodity? Well, whatta ya know - the labor market behaves just like any other commodity market! The Skeptical Entrepreneur hardly knows for whom to weep first.
Shall The Skeptical Entrepreneur weep for Money's writer, who appears to have discovered laissez-faire, or at least free-market economics? Probably better to weep for the editor(s), who considered this a reasonable slant for the article, assigned it, edited it, and posted it, all with a straight face and the comfort of knowing they were providing a service for the infotainment-starved masses.
The Skeptical Entrepreneur declines to weep for the capitalists, who having planned their work (or, at least, having arranged economic conditions in such a way that consumers will stampede to any job, no matter how distasteful, for however small a pittance), are now working their plan.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for his fellow Americans, who are so economically-illiterate that they need to be fed this sort of non-information, and will lap it up with scarcely an ironical gulp.
Perhaps The Skeptical Entrepreneur should weep for the academic economists, who, if they are as clueless as academic historians, could stand to hear "the circular flow of goods and services," and "commodity prices and supplies vary inversely with each other" just one more time, for old times's sake.
No, The Skeptical Entrepreneur reserves his tears for the poor dumb bastards who have flocked into home-healthcare aide work, especially those with shiny, new student-loan debt. It reminds TSE of the heady days of the MCSE boom in the mid-1990s, when TSE managed to avoid the stampede to second-class techno-geekery, being content to continue to flip hamburgers
As it turns out, Mark Twain was right: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Stupid Manager Tricks #2 - "If I Was a Smart Manager . . ."
Back in the day, The Skeptical Entrepreneur worked in a regional back-office for one of the national "money center" banks, handling administrative, inter-bank records. The younger, not-quite-as-skeptical Skeptical Entrepreneur was saddled with a natural blonde for a department manager.
One fine day, TSE was summoned for a counseling/coaching session (another Stupid Manager Trick) with the department head, which counseling session was held, not in the department head's office, but in TSE's second-rank supervisor's* office (TSE is still scratching his head, fully ten years later, trying to figure that out).
It was at that counseling/coaching session that the natural-blonde department head uttered the deathless phrase, "If I was a smart manager . . ." TSE managed to restrain himself from retorting, "If you were a smart manager, people would say, 'That [department head], she's one smart manager.'"
It is unfortunate that so many managers feel the need to advertise verbally what geniuses they are, when their actions (which, proverbially, speak much louder) advertise just what idiots they are. Managers should lead by example, and should be aware that they are always - ALWAYS, and ever! - under scrutiny and evaluation by their subordinates. Like it or not, think it is fair or not, feel that they should be above evaluation by the great unwashed hoi polloi or not, think that because they have gotten the MBA (or, in the case of academia, the Ph.D.) that they have outgrown, or been outpromoted from having to worry about evaluations or not, the hard fact is that managers - all leaders, for that matter - are constantly under scrutiny by their subordinates. It is part of the job of leading.
Like it or not, leaders constantly face the challenge to re-establish their credibility as leaders, from the people that they expect to follow them. If TSE's natural-blonde department head had actually been a smart manager, her actions would have proclaimed that she was a smart manager, much louder, and to much broader agreement, than her words ever either a) could have done, or b) would have needed to do.
It is a lesson that managers would do well to heed.
*To adopt, laboriously, a military metaphor, if the team leader can be likened to a squad leader, then the second-rank supervisor would be the platoon leader, and the department head would be the company commander.
One fine day, TSE was summoned for a counseling/coaching session (another Stupid Manager Trick) with the department head, which counseling session was held, not in the department head's office, but in TSE's second-rank supervisor's* office (TSE is still scratching his head, fully ten years later, trying to figure that out).
It was at that counseling/coaching session that the natural-blonde department head uttered the deathless phrase, "If I was a smart manager . . ." TSE managed to restrain himself from retorting, "If you were a smart manager, people would say, 'That [department head], she's one smart manager.'"
It is unfortunate that so many managers feel the need to advertise verbally what geniuses they are, when their actions (which, proverbially, speak much louder) advertise just what idiots they are. Managers should lead by example, and should be aware that they are always - ALWAYS, and ever! - under scrutiny and evaluation by their subordinates. Like it or not, think it is fair or not, feel that they should be above evaluation by the great unwashed hoi polloi or not, think that because they have gotten the MBA (or, in the case of academia, the Ph.D.) that they have outgrown, or been outpromoted from having to worry about evaluations or not, the hard fact is that managers - all leaders, for that matter - are constantly under scrutiny by their subordinates. It is part of the job of leading.
Like it or not, leaders constantly face the challenge to re-establish their credibility as leaders, from the people that they expect to follow them. If TSE's natural-blonde department head had actually been a smart manager, her actions would have proclaimed that she was a smart manager, much louder, and to much broader agreement, than her words ever either a) could have done, or b) would have needed to do.
It is a lesson that managers would do well to heed.
*To adopt, laboriously, a military metaphor, if the team leader can be likened to a squad leader, then the second-rank supervisor would be the platoon leader, and the department head would be the company commander.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The Order of the Golden Telescope
The Skeptical Entrepreneur is pleased to be able to accept nominations of deserving businessperindividuals (not a typo*) for enrollment in the Order of the Golden Telescope. Nominees who are accepted into this prestigious entrepreneurial-managerial recognition society, which has honored excellence in missing the point since November 2012, will have demonstrated their deserving status by displaying shortness of vision and lack of strategic focus.
Nominees who receive induction into the Order of the Golden Telescope will have demonstrated that they are so fixated on short-term results that they are able - and willing! - to imperil the long-term viability of their respective firms as going concerns. They will have shown that they can achieve real, tangible, concrete results in line with projections, and analysts's expectations, while ignoring how today's success imperils tomorrow's ability to keep the lights on, and the business functioning.
In short, inductees into the Order of the Golden Telescope will have demonstrated that they are able, not merely to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, but to stuff defeat down the throat of a victorious accomplishment of their entrepreneurial mission.
Nominations (self-nominations are allowed, and eagerly anticipated!) should be sent to The Skeptical Entrepreneur for consideration. Please include a postal/surface delivery address for the nominee, so that, if the nominee is selected for induction, suitable marks and insignia of the distinction of the Order of the Golden Telescope may be sent on.
*The Skeptical Entrepreneur takes gender-neutral language seriously. He also takes it to its logically loopy extreme. One cannot say "businessman," for the same reason that no combined word ending in "-man" is acceptable. The alternate, "businessperson," is equally invalid, and for the same reason; it ends in the masculocentric "-son," which implies maleness. Therefore, "businessperindividual." Don't say you weren't warned.
Nominees who receive induction into the Order of the Golden Telescope will have demonstrated that they are so fixated on short-term results that they are able - and willing! - to imperil the long-term viability of their respective firms as going concerns. They will have shown that they can achieve real, tangible, concrete results in line with projections, and analysts's expectations, while ignoring how today's success imperils tomorrow's ability to keep the lights on, and the business functioning.
In short, inductees into the Order of the Golden Telescope will have demonstrated that they are able, not merely to seize defeat from the jaws of victory, but to stuff defeat down the throat of a victorious accomplishment of their entrepreneurial mission.
Nominations (self-nominations are allowed, and eagerly anticipated!) should be sent to The Skeptical Entrepreneur for consideration. Please include a postal/surface delivery address for the nominee, so that, if the nominee is selected for induction, suitable marks and insignia of the distinction of the Order of the Golden Telescope may be sent on.
*The Skeptical Entrepreneur takes gender-neutral language seriously. He also takes it to its logically loopy extreme. One cannot say "businessman," for the same reason that no combined word ending in "-man" is acceptable. The alternate, "businessperson," is equally invalid, and for the same reason; it ends in the masculocentric "-son," which implies maleness. Therefore, "businessperindividual." Don't say you weren't warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)